nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Horrid wilting
Magical damage I put that it does Magical damage based on several servers that I play, not based on the "actual scripts" so if I am wrong on this according to the "actual scripts" could someone correct it? Dae-Glyth 09:57, 25 July 2006 (PDT) * I've been told that it does negative damage. -- 68.248.194.19 * I checked the script. It's magical damage. -- Alec Usticke 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT) "Death" magic I noted that the death descriptor doesn't mean that death magic immunity provides any immunity from the spell. I also put the "death" descriptor in strikeout type in the spell form. That may not be correct, since I am not sure that the descriptor is supposed to correspond to immunity, although it seems like they usually do. -MrZork 22:30, December 10, 2011 (UTC) * The .2da is not referenced for immunity type, as neither saving throws nor the spell resistance check look at it to my knowledge. The script uses saving throw type none (instead of death magic) and there is no special treatment of horrid wilting (though MySavingThrow attempts to distinguish it for visual effects). Death immunity only applies directly to EffectDeath(), all other uses of it need to be scripted. WhiZard 23:59, December 10, 2011 (UTC) :From its implementation, it appears that horrid wilting originally made a save vs. death magic (so a feat like strong soul could apply), however, after searching the patch notes, I have found no mention that horrid wilting was modified (this modification would likely be too minor anyways to be mentioned). WhiZard 00:37, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :* It was changed prior to version 1.22, but that's as far back as I can check (that's the version my CDs install). Since the patch notes only go back to 1.18, maybe it's too old (rather than too minor) to be mentioned? Regardless, I can confirm that the version of the script in the original .bif's does indicate a save versus death. It is possible that when the script was changed, no one thought to change the spell description and .2da entry. --The Krit 02:08, December 11, 2011 (UTC) ::* Comparing the original NWN script with the original SoU and HotU scripts, it seems that a lot of significant changes were made to the script in particular the targeting. As the SoU to HotU would be within the patch time-line and the patch notes do not mention horrid wilting, it would seem that the modifications to horrid wilting in general were too minor. WhiZard 14:03, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :::* Not really that many changes. From the original script to version 1.22, the saving throw type was changed from "death" to "none". Sometime between SoU and HotU, GZ made the spell not affect the caster. The only other two changes were updating the script for the expansion packs -- SoU added the "spellsIsTarget()" function which replaced the old "not a friend" check (and led to the need to exclude the caster?), and HotU added the spellhook. It is a bit surprising the "don't target caster" check did not make the patch notes (it did for implosion in 1.67), so maybe that was part of the HotU revisions? (There are no patch notes for 1.59.) Anyway, the relevant part is that the change to the saving throw is really old. --The Krit 17:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :*Descriptor doesn't neccesarily mean that there is an immunity. It doesn't even make sense in this case as this is not a instant death effect. However saving throws should be used according to the descriptors, this was probably changed between patches because the way how FortSave function worked in past (if the behavior was really changed which is what I suspect based on how works FortSave and WillSave now). --ShaDoOoW 08:24, December 11, 2011 (UTC) ::* Actually the patch difference is not the functionality of fort saves, but that the original .bif used in the script the death magic saving throw type, which was changed sometime before the SoU release. The .2da entry does not look like the default saving throw functions ever referred to it. WhiZard 14:03, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :::* I assume you tested FortSave under the NWN version where horrid wilting used SAVING_THROW_TYPE_DEATH constant in MySavingThrow function. What was result on death immune target? In 1.69 result cannot be 2 unless the target is also caster of the spell (in this case caster is excluded anyway). BTW Immunity collumns in spells.2da are unused, they have no meaning. --ShaDoOoW 16:24, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :::* I examined the original scripts and original .2da, I did not test implementation results, though I do remember playing the unpatched where death immunity did not grant immunity. The result for saving throws can be 2 even in 1.69 for the following saving throw types (only): mind-affecting, fear, disease, poison, and traps (this is regardless of whether the caster was the target). I already said immunity columns are unused and have no meaning, what I am objecting to is that the saving throw commands were inherently changed. Besides adding a few feats to register as immune (2) there does not seem to be any change in the saving throw commands. WhiZard 17:52, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :::* You sure FortSave returns 2 for these cases? Or WillSave? Anyway this doesnt matter much the issue was described. I only want to notice that descriptor doesn't neccesarily grants immunity so the note probably shouldn't specify an immunity as a result of missing descriptor in this case. --ShaDoOoW 18:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::* I am sure and have tested all saving throws against their immunity type previously. MySavingThrow() will regard the return value of 2 as 0 so there are issues with things like Taasha's Hideous Laughter and Terrifying Rage registering in some cases as automatic failure. WhiZard 21:54, December 11, 2011 (UTC) * Thanks, guys. I should have checked the code more closely. (I looked just long enough to see that undead and constructs were immune because a specific exclusion in the code, not from death magic immunity.) I have changed the note in the article to exclude my unnecessary (and inaccurate) 2da comment. I guess I am still not sure whether the strike-out style for the "death" Descriptor is okay. -MrZork 05:23, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :* The descriptor is wrong, so strikeout would be appropriate. The note is a bit too specific though, since it excludes saving throws. --The Krit 17:22, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :** True. With potential confusion about whether the descriptor determines applicability of immunities/saves/etc., would it be useful to come straight out and say that HW is not death magic? I think many people would assume the spell falls into that category from the in-game descriptor (and possibly description) and might be still wondering about about the interaction with immunity and saving throw bonuses to death magic, moreso because two common races known to have death magic immunity are immune from the spell's effects. It would remove all confusion to say: The "death" descriptor was removed from the implementation (but not the description) in an early patch. This spell is not death magic. -MrZork 21:40, December 11, 2011 (UTC) :*** On second thought, I guess that would be overkill. -MrZork 22:07, December 11, 2011 (UTC)